Off-hand weapons. Meaningless?

[Zaruthustran]

I think this falls into another category of 4e really bottlenecking ideas. If you want to fight with two weapons, play a ranger. Otherwise keep your mouth shut. Don't use your imagination to bridge ideas between classes. Put that javelin down, Mr. Fighter. You use a shield.

Hahaha, good one! Terrific troll impression, man. Three stars!

There are plenty of good uses of TWF. It's a good damage buff that stacks with Weapon Focus, it unlocks TWD (which gives the benefit of light shield without the Str 13 requirement), and with a thrown weapon, it keeps your options open.

Most rogues I've seen have been TWF rogues, typically dagger in one hand and short sword in the other. A couple Wis clerics, too (not enough Str for shield proficiency). It's not the killer app that it was in 3.5, but guess what--you can't have an armor spikes-wearing, greatsword wielding TWFighter with Power Attack--but then again, this isn't 3.5.

 

[Cirex]

You can use the offhand lightblade for actual powers while making basic melee attacks with the broadsword.

Inefficient, but legal.

I know, but I said powers. Using rogue powers with bastard sword is illegal.

 

[Ipissimus]

Right. For instance, the bugbear rogue uses sneak attack + exploit with a dagger in his off-hand, then takes OAs with the bastard sword in his main hand.

My Eladrin Rogue uses similar tactics, free Longsword WP doesn't do anything for me otherwise. That said, short sword + dagger is more effective when on the attack. Usually, I start out with ss+d, then throw the dagger and draw the longsword if the tide turns and I need to do some defending.

 

[DLichen]

I know, but I said powers. Using rogue powers with bastard sword is illegal.

I don't quite understand here, you can attack with either weapon in a turn. Even a basic melee attack is a power, so it's quite clear you can use powers with either hand.

If you're two-weapon fighting, you can use your powers with either of your two weapons.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

You cannot attack with BOTH weapons unless you are a ranger. However, you can take a feat that gives you a bonus for HOLDING an off hand one, making it semi-viable for rogues.

Everyone else is crap outta luck, however.

 

[IanB]

I don't quite understand here, you can attack with either weapon in a turn. Even a basic melee attack is a power, so it's quite clear you can use powers with either hand.

If you're two-weapon fighting, you can use your powers with either of your two weapons.

The rogue powers typically call out explicitly that you must be wielding a light blade.

 

[DLichen]

You are wielding a light blade if you are wielding it in your offhand unless you have some definition of wield I'm not aware of.

 

[IanB]

You are wielding a light blade if you are wielding it in your offhand unless you have some definition of wield I'm not aware of.

Would you also contend that a rogue gets +1 to attack with his longsword if he's holding a dagger in his off hand? Or that his longsword goes up to 1d10 if he's holding a shuriken?

 

[Three_Haligonians]

If you were a fighter.. could you not have a weapon in your main hand of one weapon group type and have an off-hand weapon of another group type?

At which point you could take some exploits that have improved effects with the matching types.. which would give you some diversity?

Especially if they were differently enchanted (as someone already pointed out).

Not sure how effective it would be.. but it seems pretty flavourful at least.


J from Three Haligonians

 

[DLichen]

On the flipside, would you contend that the rogue with a dagger in his offhand doesn't get a +1 at all?

Rangers don't have special rules saying they can wield weapons in both hands, just that they can ignore the offhand requirement, are you saying rangers can't use the two weapon fighting powers at all?

It's clear that the wielded bonus only applies to the weapon you are actually attacking with in your examples.